From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 19 13:36:21 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from et-gw.etinc.com (et-gw.etinc.com [207.252.1.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E947C37B42C for ; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 13:36:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Received: from dbsys.etinc.com (dbsys.etinc.com [207.252.1.18]) by et-gw.etinc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA13741; Thu, 19 Apr 2001 16:36:12 GMT (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010419154734.040c4ce0@mail.etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@mail.etinc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:57:17 -0400 To: "Jeremiah Gowdy" , "Rik van Riel" From: Dennis Subject: Re: SMP in 2.4 (fwd) Cc: "Alfred Perlstein" , "Kris Kennaway" , In-Reply-To: <007f01c0c8f7$0d2e7680$015778d8@sherline.net> References: <5.0.2.1.0.20010418190439.03633920@mail.etinc.com> <5.0.2.1.0.20010419114632.03cacdd0@mail.etinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 01:34 PM 04/19/2001, Jeremiah Gowdy wrote: > > Your point is moot, as you already have SMP support. The question is > > whether squeezing a few extra cycles out (SMPng) is worth making the OS > > significantly more complex, particularly when more computing power is > > always on the way. > >Much of the code is being simplified and cleaned up. And it's not a "few >extra cycles". I do admit im in a vacuum here, as I havent seen any 5.0 code. Im assuming it will be as ugly and problemattic as linux (which was unfortunately how this thread got started, but some linux moron crossposting)...and thats not fair as there are much better programmers in FBSD's camp than linux's. If its done relatively transparently, then its a big win. If it makes all of the drivers a new learning experience, then its not. db To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message